Opinion
WR-48,544-03
08-23-2023
EX PARTE ABDEL MOHANAD RAHIM, Applicant
Do not publish
ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS CAUSE NO. WR95-72756-K(C) IN THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 4, FROM DALLAS COUNTY
ORDER
Per curiam.
Applicant was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Fifth Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. Rahim v. State, No. 05-96-01069-CR (Tex. App.-Dallas June 5, 1998) (not designated for publication). Applicant challenged this conviction by way of habeas corpus in 2001 ("the -01 application"), alleging that the State failed to disclose that two witnesses were promised leniency in exchange for the their trial testimony, that those witnesses testified falsely, and that Applicant's right to confrontation was denied when the statement of a non-testifying co-defendant was admitted at trial. This Court denied Applicant's -01 application on May 2, 2001. Applicant filed this application for a writ of habeas corpus in the county of conviction, and the district clerk forwarded it to this Court. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.07.
On November 18, 2020, this Court remanded this matter to the trial court for affidavits and findings of fact addressing Applicant's claims that the State failed to disclose favorable evidence to the defense prior to trial and that he had newly-available evidence of actual innocence. In addition, this Court asked the trial court to make findings and conclusions of law as to whether Applicant's claims meet an exception to the bar on subsequent applications contained in Article 11.07, Section 4 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.
While the matter was on remand, Applicant filed an amended application raising two grounds for review: that the State failed to disclose favorable evidence to the defense prior to trial, and that the State knowingly presented false evidence. By filing the amended application, Applicant effectively abandoned his actual innocence ground. Ex parte Speckman, 537 S.W.3d 49, 55 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) ("An applicant who files an amended application while his prior application remains pending should anticipate that only the amended application will be considered by the habeas court and this Court going forward. By contrast, a 'supplemental application' is a pleading raising new claims that are intended to be considered in addition to the claims already presented in the prior application.").
In response to this Court's remand order, the trial court conducted habeas hearings and made findings of fact and conclusions of law recommending that relief be granted on the basis that the State knowingly presented false testimony at Applicant's trial. With regard to the subsequent writ bar, the trial court found that Applicant established both a new factual and a new legal basis for his false evidence claim. We disagree.
At the conclusion of the habeas hearings, Applicant indicated that he was abandoning his claim that the State violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194 (1963).
Based on this Court's independent review of the entire record, we hold that Applicant's claim of knowing use of false testimony by the State is barred by Article 11.07, Section 4 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, this application is dismissed.